As usual, the SNP's parliamentary leader, Angus Robertson, used his two questions at Prime Minister's Question Time to promote a pro-immigration agenda. Often he will raise specific cases of brownskin invaders about to be kicked out of the country as if this was a monstrous injustice. This time, however, the name cited was not a Mohammed or Umbeki but Lachlan Brain. Intrigued, I read a bit more about this. It seems this was an Australian family, ancestrally Scottish, who came to live in the Scottish Highlands in response to a Scottish government advertising programme designed to recruit people from Australia to live in depopulated areas (link). Now, they're about to be deported because they don't earn enough or something.

This is yet another illustration of the failure of the statehood paradigm. According to the statehood paradigm, our identity is defined by a government. So Africans and Asians can be waved into European societies, given bits of paper that say they are British, French or German, and we all lived happily ever after. The reality is very different, of course, because the paradigm is bunk. We are part of ancestral communities of descent. What matters is not statehood, but peoplehood, ancestral identity, not place of birth, residence or payment of tribute to a ruler.

The main opposition to the statehood paradigm comes in the form of the race paradigm. But the race paradigm also challenges the notion of ancestral peoplehood, just as the statehood paradigm does, although from the opposite extreme. Both, in their different ways, deny the reality of ancestral peoplehood, and thus constitute forms of intellectual genocide. The race paradigm is primarily promoted by Europeans who have left their ancestral homelands and kinfolk and find themselves bewildered and aghast at being confronted by the alienness that surrounds them. We Europeans should not be misled by these people into accepting ideational structures that do not allow us to defend the specificity and uniqueness of our own ancestral identity. With a race paradigm, for example, it is impossible for British people to argue against eastern European immigration, since eastern Europeans are part of the "white race".

None of this implies that Europeanness has no real meaning; or that a Polish immigrant is no better than an Arab. But adopting a "white race" paradigm means seeing the defence of our ancestral identity in only the lowest of resolutions, while we should be aiming for the highest. It is a highly pixellated approximation of the truth. The multicultists are partly right when they assert that Europe's diversity is its greatness. The diversity of Europe's peoples, its real peoples that is, is indeed what makes it special. The differences between Italians and Germans, Hungarians and Spaniards (or, seen in an even higher resolution, Castilians and Catalans) are things to be celebrated and defended, not obliterated by ideas of statehood or simplistic racial categorisations.

Assuming that rational governments return to power in Europe in future, they should consider instituting pro-immigration programmes that allow members of the European diaspora in Europe's overseas colonies such as Australia, the USA, Canada, etc. to return to their countries of ancestral origin on the easiest of terms. Of course, this would have to be demonstrated through a genetic test. The purity of lineage threshold would have to be fairly high, otherwise we would end up with Barack Obamas qualifying as "ancestrally British", which would obviously be absurd. Some of these types of programmes already exist but are rarely mentioned publicly because of the implicit challenge they pose to the statehood paradigm. For example, Israel has such a programme. Germany has one too, for the ancestral German communities living in eastern Europe, the so called Aussiedler [Out-settlers]. Spain offers immigration on easier terms to Latin Americans but I don't think they are required to demonstrate Spanish lineage.

Talking about these ideas might be a good way to undermine the statehood paradigm. If challenged, just point to Israel. No one will dare to criticise the Jews.

4
comments:

"According to the statehood paradigm, our identity is defined by a government"

§ 17. And to preserve its members.

If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its members weakens it, and is injurious to its preservation. It owes this also to the members in particular, in consequence of the very act of association; for those who compose a nation are united for their defence and common advantage; and none can justly be deprived of this union, and of the advantages he expects to derive from it, while he on his side fulfils the conditions. (15)

The body of a nation cannot then abandon a province, a town, or even a single individual who is a part of it, unless compelled to it by necessity, or indispensably obliged to it by the strongest reasons founded on the public safety. (16)

§ 18. A nation has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation.

Since then a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation. For the Law of Nature gives us a right to every thing without which we cannot fulfil our obligation; otherwise it would oblige us to do impossibilities, or rather would contradict itself in prescribing us a duty, and at the same time debarring us of the only means of fulfilling it. It will doubtless be here understood, that those means ought not to be unjust in themselves, or such as are absolutely forbidden by the Law of Nature.

As it is impossible that it should ever permit the use of such means, — if on a particular occasion no other present themselves for fulfilling a general obligation, the obligation must, in that particular instance, be looked on as impossible, and consequently void.

§ 19. It ought to avoid every thing that might occasion its destruction.

By an evident consequence from what has been said, a nation ought carefully to avoid, as much as possible, whatever might cause its destruction, or that of the state, which is the same thing.

§ 20. Of its right to every thing that may promote this end.

A nation or state has a right to every thing that can help to ward off imminent danger, and kept at a distance whatever is capable of causing its ruin; and that from the very same reasons that establish its right to the things necessary to its preservation. (17)